No On Sotomayor To Protect Second Amendment Rights

You and I know that it is extremely important that a Supreme Court justice understand and appreciate the origin and meaning of the Second Amendment, a constitutional guarantee permanently enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The record of Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, on the Second Amendment should causes cause every patriotic American grave concern over her treatment of this enumerated constitutional right.

Last year, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller, holding that the Second Amendment guarantees to all law-abiding, responsible citizens the individual right to keep and bear arms, particularly for self-defense. Following Heller, the Supreme Court is almost certain to decide next year whether the Second Amendment applies to states and local governments, as it does to the federal government (see NRA v. Chicago and McDonald v. Chicago.)

While sitting as a federal judge on the Second Circuit Appeals Court, Judge Sotomayor revealed her views on the right to keep and bear arms in Maloney v. Cuomo, a case decided after Heller, yet holding that the Second Amendment is NOT a fundamental right, that it does NOT apply to the states, and that if an object is "designed primarily as a weapon" then that is a sufficient basis for total prohibition -- even within the home!

Earlier, in a 2004 case, United States v. Sanchez-Villar, Sotomayor and two colleagues perfunctorily dismissed a Second Amendment claim, holding that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right." Imagine if such a view were expressed about other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, such as the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments!

Call, email or fax your Senator to vote “NO” on Sotomayor

United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121

Senators from your State.

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." --Thomas Jefferson

Bork Slams Sotomayor: Not Governed Entirely By Law

Republicans Keep Heat On Sotomayor… Confirmation Could Be Stopped

Republicans keep heat on Sotomayor...

Some Republican Senators may be talking the talk when it comes to Judge Sonia Sotomayor, but are they walking the walk?

Will they simply give us lip-service when it comes to opposing her judicial activism... her statements that courts make "policy"... and her previously stated belief that a "wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male..." and then vote to confirm her anyway?

Inside the Washington D.C. Beltway, too many Republican officeholders believe that compromising one's core beliefs... is "Comity."

To the rest of us... it's "Comedy."

Will Republicans in the Senate, yet again, pontificate against something they believe is wrong for the country... turn around and vote for it anyway... and then scratch their heads in wonderment as dissatisfaction over their performance reaches even higher levels?

Country music star Aaron Tippin popularized the expression, "You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything." Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons made "Walk Like A Man" an iconic expression. And the late-Senator Barry Goldwater once warned us that "Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue."

When are Republicans going to learn those apparently simple truisms? When are Republicans going to learn that people simply do not trust... support... or vote for office holders that can only give lip-service to their convictions? When are Republicans going to learn that most people mistrust those who show such a lack of conviction?

With your help, hopefully the time is now.

Tell these Republican officeholders, in no uncertain terms, that a U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearing is not just an excuse to have a national debate on judicial activism.

Demand that they put actions to their words. Demand that they stand strong against the Sotomayor nomination and stop it.

United States Capitol switch board at (202) 224-3121

Senators from your State.

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Ann Coulter: Sotomayor is Ethnic Politics at its Worst

Sotomayor: Ethnic Politics at its Worst

Source: PopModal.com

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Liberal Attack Machine Targets Firefighter

WASHINGTON — Supporters of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor are quietly targeting the Connecticut firefighter who's at the center of Sotomayor's most controversial ruling.

On the eve of Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearing, her advocates have been urging journalists to scrutinize what one called the "troubled and litigious work history" of firefighter Frank Ricci.

This is opposition research: a constant shadow on Capitol Hill.

"The whole business of getting Supreme Court nominees through the process has become bloodsport," said Gary Rose, a government and politics professor at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn.

On Friday, citing in an e-mail "Frank Ricci's troubled and litigious work history," the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way drew reporters' attention to Ricci's past. Other advocates for Sotomayor have discreetly urged journalists to pursue similar story lines.

Specifically, the advocates have zeroed in on an earlier 1995 lawsuit Ricci filed claiming the city of New Haven discriminated against him because he's dyslexic. The advocates cite other Hartford Courant stories from the same era recounting how Ricci was fired by a fire department in Middletown, Conn., allegedly, Ricci said at the time, because of safety concerns he raised.

The Middletown-area fire department was subsequently fined for safety violations, but the Connecticut Department of Labor dismissed Ricci's retaliation complaint.

No People for the American Way officials could be reached Friday to speak on the record about the press campaign.

"To go after so sympathetic a plaintiff as Frank Ricci . . . is a new low in the politics of personal destruction," said Roger Pilon, the director of the libertarian Cato Institute's Center for Constitutional Studies. "If they were smart, they'd keep a low profile."

Ricci, though, has his own advocates, including conservative commentators such as CNN's Lou Dobbs and Fox's Sean Hannity.

Nor is he the only Supreme Court confirmation witness to receive sharp elbows. In 1991, for instance, then-Senate Minority Leader Alan Simpson of Wyoming warned that witness Anita Hill would be "injured and destroyed and belittled and hounded and harassed" if she testified against nominee Clarence Thomas. Hill was preparing to testify that she'd been sexually harassed by Thomas.

Hill's subsequent testimony threw into question Thomas's confirmation, during a hearing he likened to a "high-tech lynching." A closely divided Senate ultimately confirmed him.

The 35-year-old Ricci was the lead plaintiff in the case Ricci v. DeStefano, challenging New Haven's refusal to promote white firefighters after African-American and all but one Hispanic firefighters failed to score high enough on a promotion exam.

Sotomayor and a majority of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the city's claim that it was justifiably concerned about a potential civil rights suit being filed by the African-American firefighters.

"Sotomayor and her panel colleagues were bound by long-standing precedent and federal law," People for the American Way executive vice president Marge Baker said in a June statement. "They applied the law without regard to their personal views."

Last month, however, the Supreme Court overturned the 2nd Circuit by 5-4.

"Once . . . employers have made clear their selection criteria, they may not then invalidate the test results, thus upsetting an employee's legitimate expectation not to be judged on the basis of race," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.

With his awards for bravery, some 17 years of fire department service and history of overcoming dyslexia, Ricci has become a compelling human character in the Sotomayor confirmation drama. Senate Republicans have summoned him, along with Lt. Ben Vargas of the New Haven Fire Department, as two of their 14 witnesses next week.

Though even Republicans concede Sotomayor appears poised to win confirmation, the hearing — and Ricci's part in them — could be exploited politically. The case is symbolic of race-based preferences, which conservatives have long rejected.

"Affirmative action remains a potentially useful issue for the GOP," Rose noted, and "this case has the potential of perhaps mobilizing the Republican party again."

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina added that many Americans can identify with Ricci, making him an especially attractive witness for the GOP and potentially dangerous for Democrats.

"He took on a second job and worked hard, but was denied due to the same legal concepts" that were designed to protect people's rights, Graham said.

By Michael Doyle and David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers

TOP TEN REASONS SOTOMAYOR SHOULDN’T AND WON'T BE CONFIRMED

TOP TEN REASONS SOTOMAYOR WON'T BE CONFIRMED (& how to stop her)

I generally support the idea of nominating a woman or a Hispanic to the U.S. Supreme Court, but not this one, not Judge Sonia Sotomayor. And she's so biased, that I'll go out on a limb to predict she won't be confirmed, for ten reasons:

10) SOTOMAYOR: ADMITS MAKING ACTIVIST POLICY FROM THE BENCH
In a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor told students that the federal Court of Appeals is where "policy is made." She said the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [audience laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application."  As a judicial activist, she jokingly admits "making policy" from the bench, based on feelings or empathy or judicial precedent, not laws passed by Congress, and so she assumes the power of legislature, to make policy, legislating from the bench.

9) SOTOMAYOR: PRO-ABORTION-SUPPORTS ROE V. WADE
Although she ruled to uphold the longstanding "Mexico City Policy" which had limited funds for abortions performed overseas (until President Obama struck down that policy, now fully funding abortions overseas with our taxes), Sotomayor stands squarely in the camp of supporting and upholding the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized child killing across America and cost 50,000,000 children their lives.
Furthermore, Rev. Rob Schenck of The National Clergy Council now reports that Sotomayor was or is an active board member of a group called the "Childbirth Connection" that advocates for "reproductive rights of women," which is generally a code word for abortion on demand, including partial birth abortion, which Sotomayor has never publicly opposed.  Since I was born to a single mom who courageously gave me up for adoption, and I was adopted at age three by a Christian family, I'm passionately pro-life.
PLEASE CLICK HERE TO SIGN, AND WE'LL AUTOMATICALLY FAX YOUR PERSONALIZED PETITION TO ALL 99 SENATORS, TO OPPOSE AND FILIBUSTER JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR.  (SAVING YOU HOURS OF LABOR!)

8) SOTOMAYOR: ANTI-GUN, ANTI-WEAPON, ANTI- 2nd AMENDMENT
In her ruling to allow government to ban privately owned weapons belonging to New York citizens, Sonia Sotomayor wrote in Maloney v. Cuomo: "The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right . . . not upon that of the state." Since her crazy reading of the 2nd Amendment only forbids Congress from seizing your guns, the New York State Assembly was fully authorized to ban nunchuks, or seize ANY AND ALL of your weapons, according to Sotomayor's anti-liberty reasoning.  But as a former military distinguished marksman and former captain of my rifle team at a New York State high school, I care about protecting our right to bear arms.

7) SOTOMAYOR: ANTI-TEN COMMANDMENTS, BUT PRO-MUSLIM?
ACLJ Attorney Jay Sekulow said of Sotomayor: "She is left in judicial philosophy, ranges much further left than Justice Ginsburg or Justice Souter . . . I just had a case where the Court was unanimous, it was involving the 10 commandments issue, and the court was unanimous 9 to 0, but I would not expect that if Judge Sotomayor was confirmed, that it would probably have been 8 to 1.  She has a very, very strict view of church-state separation, and she was aggressive on this idea of a 'living constitution.'"  Meanwhile she ruled one Muslim prisoner had a right to receive the Eid ul Fitr feast (a Muslim holiday meal) in his prison cell, and another Muslim prisoner had a right to access a Muslim chaplain, which is fine if she treats other faiths equally.  But I personally suspect Sotomayor would rule to disallow public prayers offered "in Jesus name" but allow prayers to Allah, just like Obama's other judicial nominee David Hamilton.
PLEASE CLICK HERE TO SIGN, AND WE'LL AUTOMATICALLY FAX YOUR PERSONALIZED PETITION TO ALL 99 SENATORS, TO OPPOSE AND FILIBUSTER JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR.  (SAVING YOU HOURS OF LABOR!)

6) SOTOMAYOR:  SAVIOR OF THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WOMEN
NOW President Kim Gandy quickly endorsed Sotomayor, saying: "This morning we will celebrate, and this afternoon NOW will launch our 'Confirm Her' campaign to ensure the swift confirmation of the next Supreme Court Justice."  There's no way this liberal group would endorse Sotomayor unless she were pro-lesbian and pro-abortion, as Gandy openly advocates on the NOW web-site.

5) SOTOMAYOR: OVERRULED 33 OF 44 VOTES BY SUPREME COURT
Sotomayor has had 5 decisions reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, 3 of which have been reversed.  One of these was her aggressive pro-environmental anti-energy decision, another was her aggressive pro-litigation anti-business decision, which was overturned unanimously.  She has carried only 11 of 44 possible votes during those cases.  Chief Justice Roberts once stated that her method of reading the statute in question "flies in the face of the statutory language." Dean Mat Staver of Liberty Law School cites these reasons to oppose Sotomayor, saying, "No one ever expected President Barack Obama to nominate someone who respects the original intent of the Constitution."

4) SOTOMAYOR: FAVORITISM BY RACE OR GENDER, NOT LAW
Sotomayor told the Berkeley Law School: "Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging . . .I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."  It is no surprise, therefore, she ruled against white Firefighters of New Haven, throwing out the results of a promotion exam because almost no minorities qualified.  She denied promotion for the white firefighters who performed well on the exam, and gave minorities who failed the exam favorable consideration toward promotion.  Sotomayor promotes aggressive affirmative action, promoting race or gender, not merit.   The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed this case in April 2009, and is expected to overturn her again.

3) SOTOMAYOR: FAVORS INTERNATIONAL LAW OVER AMERICAN LAW
Opposing a U.S. Congressional bill that would forbid activist judges from citing international law (instead of applying American law) in their decisions, Sotomayor wrote the controversial introduction for The International Judge, a book that promotes, in her words, "developing an international rule of law and institution-building" and idealizes the "pioneers who work tirelessly to bring these institutions from their incipience to their maturity."    No doubt she will vote with Justice Ginsberg, who believes American judges should sometimes look toward international law rather than the U.S. Constitution. 
PLEASE CLICK HERE TO SIGN, AND WE'LL AUTOMATICALLY FAX YOUR PERSONALIZED PETITION TO ALL 99 SENATORS, TO OPPOSE AND FILIBUSTER JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR.  (SAVING YOU HOURS OF LABOR!)

2) SOTOMAYOR:  EVEN THE LIBERALS CALL HER A BULLY
Her own former clerk, liberal Jeffrey Rosen, now legal affairs editor for The New Republic, said she has "has an inflated opinion of herself" and is "kind of a bully on the bench." Another clerk who worked on the 2nd Circuit said she's: "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench . . .She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue."

1) SOTOMAYOR: BASEBALL BIAS FOR NEW YORK YANKEES!
As a native of South Bronx, Sotomayor's hidden home-town bias became manifest in her love for the New York Yankees, judicially favoring her "Bronx Bombers" over teams from all other cities.  No kidding!  When ruling to end the 1995 baseball strike, she sided with the player's union against team owners (who sought parity among all teams with an talent-sharing salary cap).  Instead Sotomayor created bias in favor of rich teams who can afford to buy up all the good free agents.  So when the New York Yankees hogged 4 titles and 6 pennants in the 8 years after her ruling, with payrolls averaging three times most other team salaries, you can blame Sotomayor for creating that competitive imbalance.  I understand why Yankees fans might celebrate her promotion to the Supreme Court, but baseball fans from all other cities should complain loudly against her confirmation!

WHY DID SEVEN REPUBLICANS VOTE FOR HER?
In 1991, President George H.W. Bush was forced to pick Sotomayor, in a back-room deal manipulated by powerful New York Senator Patrick Moynihan, but Bush Sr. likely regrets this just like he later regretted nominating Justice Souter.  In 1998, Sotomayor was barely confirmed to the 2nd Circuit Court under Bill Clinton, but only seven current 2009 Republicans voted for Sotomayor then: Susan Collins (R-Maine), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Robert Bennett (R-Utah).  They were misled into joining all Democrats to push Sotomayor through by a vote of 68-28.  Perhaps you might call these 7 Republicans (and all Southern Democrats, and both Penn. Democrats Specter and Casey, and Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.) at 202-225-3121 and ask them to OPPOSE AND FILIBUSTER Judge Sotomayor.

But remember, 100 emails = 10 phone calls = 1 fax in political capital, since the Senate staffers must handle each paper and usually write a reply. So please join our automated fax campaign first!

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO SIGN, AND WE'LL AUTOMATICALLY FAX YOUR PERSONALIZED PETITION TO ALL 99 SENATORS, TO OPPOSE AND FILIBUSTER JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR.  (SAVING YOU HOURS OF LABOR!)

ALL TRUE CONSERVATIVES WILL VOTE AGAINST HER
In 1998, twenty-eight conservative Senators united against Sotomayor, but now we need 40 to uphold a filibuster.  Two leading conservative Senators have already questioned her credentials:  "The role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law evenhandedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.  "We must determine if Ms. Sotomayor understands that the proper role of a judge is to act as a neutral umpire of the law, calling balls and strikes fairly without regard to one's own personal preferences or political views," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

Let's support Leader McConnell and Ranking Member Sessions by encouraging them to stand firm, and get more Senators to OPPOSE AND FILIBUSTER Sotomayor's nomination.

God Bless you, in Jesus' name,

Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt                                         The Pray In Jesus Name Project

Source:  Human Events

Related Articles: 

• How GOP Can Fight Soto's Identity Politics | The FOX Nation
• The (Liberal) Case Against Sotomayor
  Rosen (5/8/09): More Sotomayor--A Response To Critics
• Rosen (3/8/1993): The Education of David Souter
• Rosen (3/12/08): Why The Dems Lack Supreme Court Nominees
• A Portrait of Judge Sonia Sotomayor
• "Empathy" Versus Law
• "Empathy" Versus Law”… Continued
• Karl Rove: Obama's Past Will Haunt Court Pick
• How Joe Biden Wrecked the Judicial Confirmation Process
• New Haven, Ct. Firefighters Claim Reverse Discrimination
• Obama the Destroyer
• Justice not for all
• Firefighter Case Heads to Supreme Court

How GOP Can Fight Soto's Identity Politics | The FOX Nation

Click Here To See:  Krauthammer: How GOP Can Fight Soto's Identity Politics | The FOX Nation

Posted using ShareThis

'Empathy' Is Code for Judicial Activism

Both President Barack Obama and Republicans get something they want from the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.

Mr. Obama said he wanted to replace Justice David Souter with someone who had "empathy" and who'd temper the court's decisions with a concern for the downtrodden, the powerless and the voiceless.

"Empathy" is the latest code word for liberal activism, for treating the Constitution as malleable clay to be kneaded and molded in whatever form justices want. It represents an expansive view of the judiciary in which courts create policy that couldn't pass the legislative branch or, if it did, would generate voter backlash.

There is a certain irony in a president who routinely praises America's commitment to "the rule of law" but who picks Supreme Court nominees for their readiness to discard the rule of law whenever emotion moves them.

Mr. Obama's pick also allows him to placate Hispanic groups who'd complained of his failure to appoint more high profile Latinos to his administration. After the Democratic share of the Hispanic vote increased to 67% in 2008 from 53% in 2004, Latino groups felt they were due more cabinet and White House posts.

Mr. Obama also hopes to score political points as GOP senators oppose a Latina. Being able to jam opponents is a favorite Chicago political pastime. Besides, the president has been reluctant to make comprehensive immigration reform an issue, so a high-profile Latina appointment buys him time.

The Sotomayor nomination also provides Republicans with some advantages. They can stress their support for judges who strictly interpret the Constitution and apply the law as written. A majority of the public is with the GOP on opposing liberal activist judges. There is something in our political DNA that wants impartial umpires who apply the rules, regardless of who thereby wins or loses.

Mr. Obama understands the danger of heralding Judge Sotomayor as the liberal activist she is, so his spinners are intent on selling her as a moderate. The problem is that she described herself as liberal before becoming a judge, and fair-minded observers find her on the left of the federal bench.

Republicans also get a nominee who likes showing off and whose YouTube moments and Google insights cause people to wince. There are likely to be more revelations like Stuart Taylor's find last Saturday of this Sotomayor gem in a speech at Berkeley: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Invert the placement of "Latina woman" and "white male" and have a conservative say it: A career would be finished.

Both Mr. Obama and the Republicans are also are denied things in this nomination. Republicans are denied an easy target. Ms. Sotomayor has a compelling personal story, attractive for cable, celebrity magazines and tabloids.

The media has also quickly adopted the story line that Republicans will damage themselves with Hispanics if they oppose Ms. Sotomayor. But what damage did Democrats suffer when they viciously attacked Miguel Estrada's nomination by President George W. Bush to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second-highest court? New York Sen. Chuck Schumer was particularly ugly, labeling Mr. Estrada a right-wing "stealth missile" who was "way out of the mainstream" and openly questioning Mr. Estrada's truthfulness.

Nonetheless, Republicans must treat her with far more care than Democrats treated John Roberts or Samuel Alito and avoid angry speeches like Sen. Ted Kennedy's tirade against Robert Bork. The GOP must make measured arguments against her views and philosophy, using her own words and actions.

The Ricci case is an example: Whites were denied fire department promotions because of a clear racial quota. Ms. Sotomayor's refusal to hear their arguments won her stinging criticism from fellow Second Court of Appeals judge José Cabranes, a respected Clinton appointee.

Mr. Obama won't get a new leader on the Supreme Court. Ms. Sotomayor does not appear to be a consensus builder whose persuasive abilities would allow her to flip a 4-5 decision to a 5-4 decision. She is likely to be just another reliable liberal vote, much as Justice Souter was, only without his gloomy silences and withdrawn nature.

While the next two to four months of maneuverings and hearings may provide more insights into the views of Mr. Obama's pick, barring an unforeseen development -- not unheard of in Supreme Court nominations -- Judge Sotomayor will become the second Hispanic (Benjamin Cardozo was Sephardic) and third woman confirmed to the Supreme Court. Democrats will win the vote, but Republicans can win the argument by making a clear case against the judicial activism she represents.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.